Impacts to special status wildlife species are generally the same as those for wildlife and include habitat loss and fragmentation (adverse impacts) from surface disturbances and protection of habitat through management that increases restrictions in known or potential habitat (beneficial impacts). Overall, Alternative B is projected to result in the least surface disturbance and would have the least potential to cause habitat loss and fragmentation in the short- and long-term, followed by alternatives A, D, and C respectively. Alternative B provides the greatest beneficial impacts to special status wildlife habitats by including the most proactive actions to restore and enhance habitats. Except for seasonal motorized vehicle restrictions in the Absaroka Front Management Area, Alternative C would have the greatest adverse impacts to wildlife habitats and, therefore, the fewest beneficial impacts for special status wildlife species. Alternatives A and D would be similar in terms of surface disturbance, though the mitigation and reclamation requirements under Alternative D may lead to fewer impacts than Alternative A. Alternative B and, to a lesser extent, Alternative D benefit special status wildlife species by protecting large areas of contiguous native habitats in the Absaroka Front Management Area, ACECs, and LWCs designated as Wild Lands; alternatives A and C, respectively, would protect fewer large blocks of contiguous habitat. Alternatives C and D exempt Oil and Gas Management Areas (568,164 acres under Alternative C and 134,214 acres under Alternative D) from seasonal wildlife restrictions, resulting in adverse impacts to special status wildlife species.

Livestock grazing management under Alternative C would adversely affect grizzly bears and gray wolves the most, followed by alternatives A, D, and B. Gray wolves would benefit more from forest, woodland, and forest products management under alternatives A and D and less under alternatives B and C. Timber harvesting practices, old-growth stand retention, surface-disturbance restrictions around raptor nests, and snag retention under Alternative B would result in the most beneficial impacts to Canada lynx, followed by alternatives D, A, and C.

Alternative B protects the largest area of greater sage-grouse leks, nesting and early brood-rearing habitats, and winter concentration areas, followed by alternatives D, A, and C. Alternative B and, to a lesser extent, Alternative D place comparatively greater restrictions on resource uses and activities in greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas (Table 4-9). Although livestock grazing in greater sage-grouse habitat can have both adverse and beneficial impact (e.g., Alternative D allows livestock grazing to improve greater sage-grouse habitat), the more restrictive management under Alternative B would be the most beneficial to this species. Other sagebrush-dependent species (e.g., Brewer’s sparrow, sage sparrow, and sage thrasher) are anticipated to benefit the most from protective management actions for greater sage-grouse under Alternative B, followed by alternatives D, A, and C.

Alternative B protects the largest area around active raptor nests (including a year-round CSU stipulation around all nests) and would be the most beneficial to these species, followed by alternatives A, D, and C respectively. Alternative C does not prohibit activities that may potentially disturb raptor nesting sites, and therefore protects the smallest amount of land for raptor nests. Adverse impacts to bald eagles from livestock grazing and surface disturbance would be greatest under Alternative C, followed by alternatives A, D, and B. Impacts from recreation in riparian/wetland areas to this species would be greatest under Alternative A, followed by alternatives B, D, and C. Proactive management actions in the Chapman Bench area under alternatives B and D would beneficially affect the mountain plover and long-billed curlew. Although livestock grazing and vegetation management under Alternative C is most beneficial to the mountain plover, adverse impacts to prairie dogs under this alternative would result in adverse impacts to the mountain plover as well.